On Jul 7, 2008, at 10:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Jul 2008, at 21:36, James Seng wrote:
And all of the questions I asked 10 years ago said that TLDs on
that latter
scale would be problematic to the root.
Was that pre-Anycast or post-Anycast?
There are plenty of examples of people hosting large, infrastructure-
type zones using servers and software that are conventional,
commodity choices. NSD and BIND9 are both quite capable of hosting
zones with single-digit millions of delegations without needing
special care and feeding, for example.
Whether the DNS service for a zone is anycast or not has some, but
really not that much relevance when you're considering the risk of
an engorged root zone. I don't read anything in the layer-9 musings
I've seen so far to suggest that the bar to entry for new TLDs will
be so low that we'll see widespread TLD tasting and churn, for
example, sufficient to make far-flung anycast instances struggle to
keep up.
It seems to me that it might be better to turn that around :
The new TLD system should not allow for widespread TLD tasting and
churn.
I worry about depending on artificial limits imposed by fees. ICANN
will certainly be lobbied to lower their
fees; what if the fee in 2012 is $ 100 not $ 100,000 ?
Regards
Marshall
I'm not suggesting that growth should be allowed to happen without
considering the technical consequences. However, I believe in
practice with the headroom in systems and network that root server
operators generally install anyway, there's considerable room for
growth and the general argument that growth in the root zone will
undermine stability sounds more like hysteria than science.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf